Skip to main content

About your Search

20130113
20130121
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10
the narrow lens of deficit reduction so the larger goal of economic growth and maintaining the health and economic security of all americans. now, there's no question that reducing the federal deficit is a worthwhile goal. nobody's going to argue with that. we need to address our nation's long term physical problem. we understand that. they affect all of us. most importantly our children and our grandchildren. their future would not be bright if they are drowning in red ink of budget deficits and soaring national debt. we understand that too. however, their futures will not be very bright if they can't afford health care or if they can't afford a quality education or if they don't have the opportunity to attain long term financial security. leaving them with less economic security by weakening social security and medicare would be just as bad, and for many people, it would be worse, and if we weaken social security and medicare to the point of their parents and grandparents to no longer live with dignity and purpose, we will be risking their futures as well. as a nation, we have to br
in nearly the past three years, and the whole fiasco added to the deficit. host: after the news conference yesterday, house speaker john boehner responded with this statement -- " what are your thoughts on this? if the debt ceiling negotiable. some quick comments -- remember, you can post your comments on twitter. the first phone call is from maryland, a democratic caller, jill. caller: i don't believe the debt ceiling is negotiable. it is kind of ridiculous that the money is already owed, so why are we not going to pay what is owed to other people? if people have made investments, the bills have to be paid. i find it ridiculous that people in congress don't want to pay what is already owed. it does not make sense. host: here is the wall street journal this morning. caller: well, if you're asking me if that's true, i think there definitely needs to be somewhat of a compromise as far as spending cuts, but that is not an easy issue, because spending cuts mean job losses. it's not an easy thing to say a president will say we will stop paying the bills too. so there has to be compromised rehab
the deficit. so you have to open the door to private investment to do this job of rebuilding the power platform in the united states. >> host: and the technology aspect of that is? >> guest: technology aspect is manifold. and price performance improves every 18-24 mocks. in the last year we have gotten into the innovation cycle in batteries so by the end of 2020 electric vehicles will actually be price competitive with grass-driven cars. the problem with these things is that we can't wait. we can't wait because of the environmental effects and we can't wait because we need the economy to grow quickly right now. so the book lays out a whole bunch of different ideas for bringing private investment much more quickly into the job of rebuilding the power grid. >> host: on this show, a series on the international power plant, and he doesn't necessarily agree that the internet is completely green or is terribly green. what is your thought? >> guest: he is right about that. people say that data centers in the united states account for 2% of all electricity consumption. if it isn't exactly that
reduced the federal deficit even by a dollar. we are not going to get out of this overnight. this would allow us to keep reducing the deficits. we have a shared value in eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse. we are intent on that. host: how much of the budget does waste, fraud, and abuse make up? guest: i could go back to virginia beach, virginia, and we could identify waste every day. we will never eliminate it entirely. we can do a better job. it will take reforms. we are living longer and we have fewer people paying in. i want to protect those who are hurting the most, like art, who called in earlier. host: lester is a republican. caller: good morning. disability, 63 years old. my wife still works. $45,000 a less taw less than year. somehow someone is going to have to do something about this. guest: i agree completely. i believe it is immoral for one generation to pass on debt that dims their future. those who have served our country -- i am mindful of the price paid by our goldstar families. we're failing the young people. i am with you. i was over it. i believe when americans are gi
't create new deficit spending. so not raising the debt ceiling is sort of like a family that's trying to improve its credit rating. families that say, i know how we can save money, we won't pay her credit card bills. it was the sole solution to the debt ceiling in august of 2011 in the u.s. downgraded last time. so all these issues are important and it's very important that congress take necessary action to raise the debt ceiling to avoid a situation where government doesn't pay its bills. >> a number of people have expressed concern about how much of the challenges actually were addressed in a deal, it certainly went part way, but leaves a number of issues still on the table. would you care to raise that as an additional fiscal cliff that is facing us? would you think that it's not as concerning as it was when you raise that term initially? >> as i said the fiscal cliff, if it is allowed to take place, it probably would have traded a recession this year. a good bit of that has been addressed. nevertheless, we still have fairly restrictive fiscal policies now. it is estimated that fed
deficit hawk. the republican senate committee budget guru, and he is offsetting most of the first slice. the bill's actually two pieces, 17 billion and 34 billion. and he's offsetting the 17 billion portion with a across-the-board cut. so it'll be interesting to see if that passes or not. you know, all democrats will vote against it, and i suspect that it will fail. but it'll be interesting to see. for him it's important because they want to establish the principle that emergency spending needs to be offset with spending cuts. which is something that democrats are very afraid of, because they feel like every time there's a disaster, republicans use it as an excuse to go after domestic programs, social services and so forth. so that'll be an important precedent, and then we'll see what happens in the senate. you know, we'll probably see a house/senate conference on the bill or some ping-ponging between the chambers and probably delaying final enactment. >> host: yeah. and the washington times reporting this morning that the conservative group for growth is threatening to punish members w
to prioritize the government's bills. what's wrong with that idea? guest: we have had some deficit reduction. as the president laid out a couple days ago, we have had over $2 trillion. we had 1.5 trillion that came from previous actions. and then we added just a few days ago some further deficit reductions through some increased taxes on the very wealthy of this country. so we have already begun to undertake deficit reduction. to use that as a reason to use the debt ceiling as a weapon is really playing with fire. they say pay some bills and not pay others. we have never tried that before. host: is it feasible? guest: i don't think so. which bills? social security? veterans? people out fighting for this country? which bills do you pay? we never tried that. i think the president put it so well. this is not a deadbeat nation really, and i think common sense is likely to prevail within the republican ranks. i know, if i might say so, if not firsthand, secondhand, much of the leadership within the house republican caucus, not all of it, i think some realizes the potential consequences. host: if
this. yes, it may run up the immediate deficit, but once again, for every dollar that we invest in those levees we not only save lives and property, but we put people to work and we get the economic engine going. further up in my district, again, along the sacramento and the rivers, i have a project that's 44 miles of levee that clearly will fail. it has failed four times in the last 60 years. lives have been lost. one of the most catastrophic failures of a levee happened in this stretch of river. we need to rebuild that. the federal government's role in these construction projects of these levees has gone back to the very beginning of this nation and it is congress' task to allocate the money to decide the projects that are going to be built. but unfortunately we tied ourselves in knots here with certain rules that have been put in by our republican colleagues that prevent us from taking the necessary action to protect our communities. we're not talking about, you know, willy nily unnecessary projects. we're talking about saving -- nilly unnecessary projects. we're talking abou
remains committed to further reducing the deficit in a balanced way. so that is the response from the white house after the gop at its retreat in virginia came out with the possibility that perhaps we could extend the debt limit for another three months but the senate has to pass a budget, so the republicans which it has not done in four years. so. tracy: no surprise from the white us house. ashley: says no. tracy: okay, then. how about this. hank paulson says he hates the debt limit. you remember the former treasury secretary, the guy who said i need $700 billion right now? no wonder he hates it. ashley: don't we all. tracy: he has given a rare interview. we have details on that next. ashley: first a look at today's winners and losers. the dow just above the water mark. take a look. we'll be right back. ♪ chances are you've become, a better driver over the years. and one company thinks your auto insurance rates should get better too. presenting the aarp auto insurance program from the hartford. i'm a good driver. have been for years. it just makes sense that better, more experi
. the problem is if you'd inadvertently did not disclose information, you are put out a credibility deficit with the public, and sometimes it is hard to get out of that, and it is difficult for or organizations to think about releasing the information before it is out for. -- asked for. i have been involved in several situations where the information was available and understandable. it mitigated some concerns. it was difficult to make that transparent, and catching up with that is really difficult. one reason for the impact was the lack of information as a baseline for understanding there had been a change. as a context for moving beyond the research done, what do you think the larger research agenda ought to be about? >> the hydrocarbons in the continental shelf and inland areas are pretty well known. it is the deep sea we did not have information for. i think the deep sea ecosystem is an area we need to emphasize, and some of the longer living organisms such as marine mammals. one of the issues is the effect of multiple stressors. we have some smart jury is that were heavily oiled, and s
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10